RecordLabel
Latest
Streaming radio may be the next frontier for Apple's music efforts
In a rather interesting article last week detailing music service Pandora's ongoing struggle with record labels' streaming fees, The Verge says that "iRadio," Apple's rumored Pandora competitor, is being primed for a launch this Summer. "Much has been written about Apple's plan to launch a Pandora-esque service this year. Now multiple music industry insiders have told The Verge that significant progress has been made in the talks with two of the top labels: Universal and Warner. One of the sources said 'iRadio is coming. There's no doubt about it anymore.' Apple is pushing hard for a summertime launch." Given the seemingly fickle nature of record labels and Apple's well-known intransigence when it comes to negotiations, our advice is to take this report with a grain of salt. Still, rumors of Apple's interest in launching its own streaming music service have persisted for quite some time. The likeliest sticking points in Apple's efforts to launch an iRadio service are the royalty payments to music labels. Most recently, the New York Post claimed that Apple was hoping to pay record labels about US$0.06 per 100 songs streamed. To put that into context, Pandora currently pays record labels 12 cents per 100 songs streamed. Meanwhile, Spotify (which allows consumers to select individual songs for playing / mobile sync, in addition to its streaming programming) pays record labels 36 cents per every 100 songs streamed. As to why Apple wants to get into the music streaming business: it's always helpful to follow the money. To that end, approximately 50 percent of Apple's iTunes revenue originates from purchases made on mobile devices. And when you also consider that both Pandora and Spotify are extremely popular iOS applications, it's clear that there's already a huge market for music streaming. It only makes sense that Apple would want a piece of that pie. With a streaming radio service under the iTunes umbrella, Apple could generate revenue from advertising and music subscriptions -- all the while funneling customers who want to buy songs from the iRadio service to the iTunes Music Store. While record labels might be wary of ceding any ground to Apple, they shouldn't let old grudges get in the way of acquiring new revenue streams. Streaming radio is a great idea, as long as there's an ecosystem of mobile devices to listen in. While there have been upwards of 500 million iOS devices sold, Apple says nearly 300 million (60 percent) of those devices have shipped with or have been updated to iOS 6 (as of January 2013). The takeaway is that iOS users, more so than their Android counterparts, are much more likely to upgrade to the most current available mobile OS version. [In fairness, with Android updates bottlenecked through the mobile carriers, a much smaller proportion of the Android installed base is eligible to run the latest version. –Ed.] Consequently, if Apple updates iOS such that an iRadio service is embedded into the Music app -- or perhaps as a featured standalone app, in the same fashion that the Podcasts app has been broken out from Music -- it may very well shake up the digital musical landscape yet again.
Deezer announces ambitious global rollout, ignores US and Japan
Deezer added a few notches to its music streaming belt yesterday, with the announcement of its long awaited rollout to (nearly) every corner of the globe. The launch, confirmed at Le Web in Paris yesterday, has already brought the service to both Ireland and the Netherlands, with plans to expand across Europe by the end of this month. Users in Canada and Latin America can expect to receive the French service by the end of January, Australia and Africa should see it by the end of February, and everyone else by the middle of next year. Conspicuously absent from that list are the US and Japanese markets, both of which have been passed over "due to market saturation and low growth forecasts," as well as the fact that the two countries comprise "only" 25 percent of worldwide music consumption. Le sigh. [Thanks, Paulo]
STHoldings withdraws more than 200 record labels from Spotify, does so with gusto
STHoldings stormed its way out of Spotify this week, leaving only a trail of choice words in its wake. On Wednesday, the distributor boldly withdrew more than 200 of its record labels from Spotify, Rdio, Simfy and Napster, following the release of a study that cast the music subscription industry in a rather unfavorable light. According to the research, carried out by NPD Group and NARM, cloud-based services like Spotify and Rdio deter consumers from purchasing music via other channels. Amid concerns that these companies may "cannibalise the revenues of more traditional digital services," STHoldings decided to withdraw its catalogue of more than 200 labels. In fact, of the 238 labels consulted on the decision, just four expressed a desire to remain with Spotify, et al. "As a distributor we have to do what is best for our labels," STHoldings explained, in a statement. "The majority of which do not want their music on such services because of the poor revenues and the detrimental affect on sales. Add to that the feeling that their music loses its specialness by its exploitation as a low value/free commodity." The distributor went on to quote one of its labels with a line that rhymes with "duck modify." In comparatively subdued response, Spotify said it respects STHoldings' decision, but still hopes that the labels "will change their minds." The Swedish company also contested STHoldings' study-backed arguments against it, claiming that it has "already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again," and assuring that artists' revenue streams will "continue to grow." Read more about the study, the stats and the spat at the links below.
Google to launch MP3 store in coming weeks?
Details are still scarce here, but the New York Times is reporting that Google is about to launch a new MP3 store, as part of its ongoing foray into the music business. According to sources within the industry, the platform, not surprisingly, would be directly linked to Google Music Beta and may launch within the next few weeks -- perhaps even before Apple unveils iTunes Match, at the end of this month. It remains to be seen, however, whether Big G will be able to finalize negotiations with record labels and publishers before launching the initiative in earnest -- a potentially major hurdle, considering Google's recent track record. As you may recall, previous negotiations over a proposed locker-type storage service ultimately broke down earlier this year, amid concerns over licensing and illegal file-sharing. As one label executive told the Times, the recording industry desperately wants to "make sure the locker doesn't become a bastion of piracy." An MP3 store, of course, isn't exactly a radical proposal, but its future will likely hinge upon Google's ability to mend relations with a sector it recently characterized as "unreasonable and unsustainable."
Apple's iCloud bags last major record label, will cost $25 / year to sign up?
We'd heard that Universal was the only holdout, and now CNET says the deal is done -- Apple has reportedly signed all four major record labels for its upcoming iCloud service. We'll be bringing you all the confirmed details on June 6th, but while you wait, here's some food for thought: the Los Angeles Times says that Apple will eventually charge somewhere around $25 a year for a subscription to the cloud. That will help supplement the 58 percent piece of the pie it's planning to take from the music industry for songs distributed though the network, and possibly some ad revenue as well. 30 percent will reportedly go to the labels, and another 12 percent to publishers, who will apparently be signing their own agreements with Apple tomorrow. Update: There's actually an interesting discrepancy between the two sources here: the LA Times reports that Apple's taking that nice, juicy 58 percent, but CNET says that the labels will take 58 percent while Apple claims its traditional 30 percent instead. We're investigating. Update 2: The LA Times has updated its piece, with different percentages still -- reportedly, Apple will take 18 percent, publishers get 12 percent, and labels 70 percent of the proceedings.
Apple gets cozy with EMI, Universal, and Sony over cloud music licensing (updated)
Ah, so it's all coming together now. Following a report on Warner Music inking a cloud streaming deal with Apple, CNET is back with fresh information that sees three more major record companies jumping on board. Citing "multiple music industry sources," we're told that EMI is the latest addition to Apple's cloud music portfolio, while Universal and Sony are close to sealing the deal to permit this rumored iCloud service. If true, such endorsement will no doubt add pressure on Google and Amazon over their cheeky, license-free cloud streaming offerings -- not a bad way to fend off competition, though it's not clear how much money's involved. Guess we'll know more at WWDC next month. Update: Bloomberg is citing multiple source who claim that Sony has inked a deal with Apple leaving only Universal to play coy. Two sources claim that Apple's cloud music service won't require users to upload their music.
LimeWire reaches $105 million settlement with record labels
It's been a long, slow demise for the once mighty file sharing service, but LimeWire has now taken one last big step towards being a footnote in internet history. The company reached an out of court settlement with the major record labels yesterday, which will see it and its founder, Mark Gorton, fork over $105 million to finally put an end to its longstanding dispute with the RIAA. In a statement, the RIAA said that the settlement was "another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators," while LimeWire's attorney said simply that he was "pleased that this case has concluded." You'll note, of course, that the RIAA said "another" milestone -- it's obviously still hoping for plenty more settlements or legal victories where this one came from.
What stalled negotiations between Google and the music industry? (Hint: money)
It's no secret that negotiations between Google and the recording industry haven't been going very well. Perhaps even less surprising are the reasons behind the stalemate. According to the Hollywood Reporter, discussions between the two parties have sputtered thanks to three usual suspects: money, file-sharing and concerns over competition. During licensing talks, Google agreed to pay upfront advances to all participating labels, but the major players wanted bigger guarantees. That prompted the indie contingent to ask for similar money, unleashing a snowball of stakes-raising. The two sides also failed to agree on how to handle pirated music, with the industry demanding that Google not only ban illegally downloaded files from users' lockers, but that it erase P2P sites from its search results, as well. Hovering above all this bargaining was a thick cloud of destabilizing uncertainty. Some execs welcomed the idea of a new iTunes competitor, while others were less enthusiastic, amid concerns that Google Music wouldn't deliver new revenue streams. The ultimate question, of course, is how negotiations will proceed now that Google's already launched the service. The labels were warned that Tuesday's I/O announcement was coming, but the search giant didn't do much to mend fences when it effectively blamed the record execs for holding up negotiations. It's hard to say whether Google's bravado will help or hurt matters, but according to a source from a major label, "People are pissed."
Apple signs Warner Music to its cloud-based music service
Need another sign that iTunes will soon be floating your library up to the cloud? Look no further than confirmation of Apple signing Warner Music, a deal that should see the label's music available in its upcoming streaming iTunes service. This is in addition to last week's confirmation that two major labels signed on, though its unclear whether Warner is part of the pair or is, indeed, a third. That might leave only one of the major labels left unsigned -- or maybe Apple's already locked down all four but doesn't want to kiss and tell. Yet.
Apple slyly enables background iDisk music streaming in iOS 4
Well, would you look at that? The v1.2 update to MobileMe iDisk that Apple pushed out last month has a secret -- er, did have a secret. One of the concealed new features of the app is background streaming, or as Apple puts it, the ability to "play audio from your iDisk while using another app." For starters, it's pretty fantastic just to have this functionality in-hand for your own garage jams, but what's more is that any licensed music on your iDisk still streams perfectly fine. Only time will tell if any record labels (or that mean, mean RIAA) step forward with a grievance, but this could very well be the beginning of iTunes in the cloud. Or a reason for buying Lala. Or a mysterious combination of the two.
Warner Music talks trash about free streaming services, keeps using them
Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. isn't happy with free music streaming services. Shocking, right? Coming out yesterday with a barrage of disparagement for online streamers like Spotify and Last.fm, Bronfman Jr. made it clear that they do not represent "the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future." Why is that, Eddie? The man in charge seems to think that paid subscription models are the future, because "the number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music" online. That's wonderful and all, but he neglects to tell us the specifics of how and why Warner will succeed at something that every publisher would love to have, but none have managed to translate into reality yet. Additionally, WMG is not withdrawing its music library for the moment -- something a lot of publications seem to have erroneously reported (see Spotify tweet below) -- which leads us to believe the entire spiel is more of a renegotiating ploy than a concrete statement of intent. [Thanks, Wiggy Fuzz]
Apple said to be charging $10,000 for iTunes LP production, cutting out indie labels
Sure, it may be tough deciding whether to shell out the extra few bucks for a deluxe iTunes LP or not (okay, maybe not that tough), but it looks like that's nothing compared to what record labels are faced with. While Apple itself of course isn't saying anything official on the matter, Gizmodo spoke with the owner of one indie record label who got a bit of information after inquiring about the possibility of making some iTunes LPs himself. Apparently, not only is Apple not currently making iTunes LPs available to indie labels at all, but it's charging the major labels a hefty $10,000 production fee for each one, which no doubt also means they'll be confined to particularly big sellers unless something big changes.[Via iLounge]
Slacker inks deals with major, indie labels
It's been a tick since we've heard any peeps from Slacker, but today it announced that it not only inked a deal with a few "top indie labels," but it managed to sign up the likes of EMI, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, too. Additionally, "as part of the agreement, Slacker listeners can transfer their personalized stations to Slacker Portable Players with a single click and automatically refresh them via WiFi or USB." On the independent front, IODA, The Orchard, Beggars Group and Matador Records, IRIS, Ubiquity Records and Sanctuary Group PLC are all signed on, further broadening the amount of content available to, well, Slackers. So if your ears are in need of some variety, head on over to the firm's website to try out the (freshly expanded) Slacker Personal Radio beta.Read - Slacker Finalizes Deals With Major Labels Read - Slacker Inks Deals with Top Indie Labels
Sell on iTunes with TuneCore
Have you ever considered selling your own music on iTunes? A service called TuneCore makes that possible. You pay a small charge to deliver your album to iTunes plus a yearly fee. If people start buying your tunes, you earn $0.70 per track. So let's say you create an album with 8 tracks. You pay $0.99 per track upload plus another $0.99 for the album listing, and $9.98 for the first year album fee. That works out to--scratches head--8 x $0.99 + 1 x $0.99 + $9.98 = $18.89 to upload and store that 8-track album. After the first year, you continue to pay $9.98 per year per album. That album would start earning money for you after the first 26-or-so sales, if I did the math right which is always questionable. So what does selling through iTunes get you? First of all, nearly anyone who doesn't use Linux can use iTunes to buy your tracks, so your product is pretty accessible. Second, I'm guessing that TuneCore takes care of a lot of the accounting issues, so you just upload and you're done until you start earning money--if you start earning money. Obviously, you'd have to take care of your own marketing, but this would make a great way to distribute material for non-profits like schools for audio-only material. This of course, assumes, that TuneCore ends up being reliable and trustworthy. TuneCore offers a complete FAQ of their service here.
